Daniel Greenfield runs a blog called Sultan Knish. His about me page says

My name is Daniel Greenfield. I’m a blogger and columnist born in Israel and currently living in New York City. I am a contributing editor at Family Security Matters and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. My columns appear at Family Security Matters , Right Side News and daily at the Canada Free Press, as well as at Act for America and Front Page Magazine.

Farha Khaled wrote in an article about the connections between many of the anti-Muslim bloggers:

One such blog is the rabidly anti Palestinian and Islam hating blog ‘Sultan Knish‘ run by Daniel Greenfield an Israeli sabra living in New York, who is a fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Centre the same organisation that sponsors Jihad Watch. Daniel is obsessed with a pathological hatred for Muslims and a delusion that the US military exists to carry out his fantasy of a war on Islam. Daniel’s postings regularly dehumanise Muslims, and are filled with anti Islam screeds which he fabricates on whim, not unlike Ned May. He also has a Torah Parsha blog and this video shows him in a debate about New Media. In a common theme amongst neo cons, Daniel complains there is a plot to destroy the US military by Obama. In one blog post ‘Winning the War on Terror‘ he suggests genocide:

‘We would have to be willing to kill millions, directly or indirectly, while maintaining an alliance that would defy Russia, China and the First World nations that would accuse us of genocide. The real name for this war might well turn out to be World War III. It would take a Churchill or a Roosevelt to launch something like that, and while the world would be radically different afterward, it might well turn out to be radioactively different too.’

FrontPage Magazine’s Daniel Greenfield reacted with total hysteria today to a report on anti-Muslim activists, “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in the United States,” that was released by the Center for American Progress (CAP) last week. Greenfield alleges that the report, which named FrontPage Magazine and its head David Horowitz as key players in fomenting anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S., is part of an anti-Semitic conspiracy.

“If Americans view Islam badly, it can only be because a handful of Jewish experts financed by other rich Jews brainwashed them into it,” Greenfield writes, falsely implying that the CAP report makes the argument that the Jewish community writ large is maligning Muslims in the U.S. Rather, CAP’s report profiles a small handful of activists, some Jewish and some not, who have worked to demonize the Muslim community.

Greenfield actually compares CAP’s work directly to major anti-Semites deserving of condemnation, writing, “When Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad blamed Jewish influence for the poor image of Muslims in the West, he was widely condemned for it.” And he doesn’t stop with one example. He further analogizes CAPs report to various major instances of anti-Semitism over the centuries. “England’s first socialist party blamed the Boer War on the Jews. Henry Ford claimed the Jews were behind WWI. Charles Lindbergh delivered speeches accusing the Jewish lobby of stirring up war against Germany,” writes Greenfield.

He even analogizes the report to the anti-Semitic violence of the Nazis, particularly on Kristallnacht: “In the dark days of the Twentieth Century, while Jewish storeowners were sweeping up broken glass, and Jewish children were being assaulted on the streets of Europe – the appeasers were blaming the Jewish lobby for growing tensions in Europe. Now as Jewish storeowners sweep up broken glass after leftist pro-Muslim attacks on their stores and Jewish children are attacked again on the streets of Europe – growing tensions with the Muslim world are once again blamed on the Jewish Lobby.”

Greenfield’s conclusion: “The Center for American Progress is guilty of repeating a sinister history” and “blaming Jews for Islamophobia.” Greenfield says CAP’s researchers have done “the work of the jihadists and have thus also become part of the problem.”

In his Web posting, Greenfield takes a cheap shot at the report’s co-author, Faiz Shakir, of whom he says that if he “really wanted to understand why his religion is viewed negatively by so many Americans,” Shakir should “stand at Ground Zero, the graveyard of thousands murdered by holy warriors invoking the Koran … walk through Times Square, where a fellow Pakistani plotted to detonate a car bomb, or … visit the small towns where every few weeks a body is lowered into the ground courtesy of a Muslim terrorist.”

This isn’t the first hysterical response to CAP’s report from FrontPage Magazine. Earlier, Horowitz had called CAP “fascistic” and accused it of trying to “silence critics of Islamic terror.” FrontPage is also planning to release its own report, “Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists “Sultan Knish a blog by Daniel Greenfield” as an Active Anti-Muslim Hate Groups.

Daniel Greenfield of the David Horowitz Freedom Center wrote in Horowitz’s FrontPageMag that the Labor Party youth camp was filled with “indoctrination of hate” and that Breivik would’ve fit right in:

How can we make sense of this? Glenn Beck compared the Workers Youth League camp to a Hitler Youth camp. He was close, but not entirely right. The roots of the Workers Youth League are actually Communist.

Norway’s Labour Party was a member of the Communist International. The Workers Youth League was formed by the merger of the Left Communist Youth League and the Socialist Youth League of Norway. We often use “Communist” as a pejorative– but in this case the Utoya camp, literally was a Communist youth camp.

The day before the massacre, Norwegian Foreign Minister Gahre-Store visited the camp and was greeted with banners calling for a boycott of Israel, and Gahre-Store responded with an Anti-Israel speech to cheers from the campers. There is something ominous about such indoctrination of hate. It is not quite on the level of the Hitler Youth, but neither is it a world apart.

In the 1930′s, Germans were encouraged to blame their problems on the Jews. In this decade, Norwegians are encouraged to blame their problems on the Jews. There are few children of workers at the Workers Youth League camp. They are for the most part the children of the party, the sons and daughters of bureaucrats and party leaders, training the next generation to perpetrate the Labour Party state.

Breivik came from that same background. The son of the left wing elite. And if his parents’ marriage had not collapsed, with the young boy allotting a share of the blame to the Labour Party, he would likely have a comfortable spot in the socialist state. Breivik may have turned against his roots, but the idea that terroristic violence is a legitimate solution is one that he could have easily picked up on the left.

When Gov. Christie appointed Sohail Mohammed to serve on the New Jersey Supreme Court, Greenfield was one of those who complained bitterly. He wrote that “New Jersey, the Garden State, has just taken its first step toward becoming the Sharia State,” and criticized Christie for being “willing to stand up to the teacher’s union, but not to the terrorist’s union.”

... Participation in any Muslim organization therefore becomes the equivalent of participating in a Communist organization-and can be banned. So back to the original question, can we ban Islam? While we cannot ban an individual from personally believing in Islam, we can ban Islamic practices and organizations which would effectively ban any practice of Islam in an organized way.

While the First Amendment does not permit a ban on any specific religion, this is limited to religious belief, not religious practice. And the laws enacted against Communism in the 1950’s demonstrate that organizations aimed at the overthrow of the United States can be banned and membership in them can even be criminalized.

Thus we can ban Islam from the public sphere, ban Muslim organizations as criminal organizations, criminalize Muslim practices and even denaturalize and deport Muslims who are United States citizens. The legal infrastructure is there. Despite the fact that the United States is far more protective of political and religious rights, within a decade every single Muslim organization, from the national to the mosque level, can be shut down ... and the majority of professing Muslims can be deported from the United States regardless of whether they are citizens or not.

We can do it. Whether we could or will do it is another matter. It would require rolling back a number of Supreme Court decisions that are a legacy of the corrupted Warren Court. But it was possible post 9/11. It may yet become possible again.

* This article originally referred to the Religion of Peace site as belonging to Daniel Greenfield. That reference has been removed because only one source could be found for that information, and it could not be verified.